[apparmor] [PATCH] update man page for recent mount rule additions

[John Johansen]

On 04/11/2012 10:35 AM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:27:48AM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 04/11/2012 10:09 AM, Steve Beattie wrote:
>>> For the record, what I was hoping/exoecting the 'in' syntax would
>>> accomplish was eliminating the need to write stuff like the latter;
>>> i.e. that
>>>
>>>   mount options in (ro, atime) /dev/foo,
>>>
>>> would be equivalent to
>>>
>>>   mount options=ro /dev/foo,
>>>   mount options=atime /dev/foo,
>>>
>> that is close to what I intended, I did it as
>>    mount options=(ro,atime) /dev/foo,
>>    mount options=ro /dev/foo,
>>    mount options=atime /dev/foo,
> 
> Wait, the mount options don't accumulate? So
> 
>   mount options=ro /dev/foo,
>   mount options=atime /dev/foo,
> 
> would allow
> 
>   mount -o ro /dev/foo /some/mnt/location/
> 
> and
> 
>   mount -o atime /dev/foo /some/mnt/location/
> 
> but would not allow
> 
>   mount -o ro,atime /dev/foo /some/mnt/location/
> 
> ? This is seriously confusing.
> 
How so?  Within a single rule options set they do accumulate
   mount options=ro /dev/foo,
   mount options=atime /dev/foo,

are separate rules
   mount options in (ro,atime) /dev/foo,

is a different rule and it is equivalent to the 3 rules
   mount options=ro /dev/foo,
   mount options=atime /dev/foo,
   mount options=(ro,atime) /dev/foo,

not saying we couldn't treat 'in' as a straight up list of single '=' options but
it always was a set to me.

Also I haven't seen a reply to the other question.  What shoule

  mount options=ro options=atime,

mean?  Should it be
  mount options=(ro,atime)

as currently implemented, or should we change it to mean
  mount options=ro,
  mount options=atime,

which is what sbeattie original thought it meant and after looking at it
I think is more natural


> 
> 
>